Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items of Urgent Business will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items of Urgent Business will be dealt with under Item 22 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 26 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

A Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

No declarations of interest were made.

On occasions part of the Cabinet meeting will be held in private and will not be open to the public if an item is being considered that is likely to lead to the disclosure of exempt or confidential information. In accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”), members of the public can make representations about why that part of the meeting should be open to the public.

This agenda contains exempt items as set out at Item 22: Exclusion of the Press and Public.  No representations with regard to these have been received.

This is the formal 5 clear day notice under the Regulations to confirm that this Cabinet meeting will be partly held in private for the reasons set out in this Agenda.

No representations were received.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the addition of the sentence underlined below, in relation to minute CAB657, the minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014 be confirmed as a correct record:

Minute: CAB657 ‘The Council’s Provisional Outturn’

‘In response to two questions from the Leader of the Opposition, it was noted that although the cost of redundancies made by schools were met by the Council, decisions regarding staff and redundancies were made by schools themselves and therefore the Council was limited in its ability to control these costs. With regard to the cost of redundancies made by Homes for Haringey the Leader requested that officers provided further detail with respect to these to the Leader of the Opposition outside the meeting.  With regard to a question in relation to the redevelopment of Hornsey Town Hall and the costs attached to the ‘gateway review’, which was referred to in Appendix 2 of the report; Cabinet was advised that as part of a redevelopment project such as this it was usual to have a review of this kind in order to review all of the options available. A full report setting out the findings of the gateway review would be considered by Cabinet on 15 July’.

A deputation was accepted in relation to Item 11: Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework Delivery Plan, from Mr Philip Udeh of the ‘Our Totteham Network’.

Mr Udeh began by noting that the Our Tottenham Network was an umbrella group covering over forty-five local community organisations. In April 2013 the network had brought together these groups and formulated and adopted a Community Charter for Tottenham, which was followed in February 2014, by a conference to promote community planning.

Mr Udeh noted that the network wanted to see improvements for the existing residents of Tottenham and community empowerment and he contended that the Council’s approach to the development of Tottenham would see large numbers of people priced out of their neighbourhoods. Mr Udeh noted that the network welcomed recommendations within the Tottenham Future report with respect to the expansion of social and affordable housing, defending small businesses and social and community facilities and community engagement and empowerment; however, he considered that the Council had not fully taken on board these points in its approach to the regeneration of Tottenham.

In conclusion Mr Udeh noted that the network considered that the Council could improve its approach by committing to five ‘quick wins’ including; implementing the Wards Corner Coalition’s community plan; scrapping proposals for demolition at High Road West and the creation of a ‘Spurs walkway’ and creating new plans in partnership with local traders and residents; improving, rather than demolishing, existing Council estates; extending the leases of community run community centres and committing to no evictions and; expanding health related services from the St Ann’s Hospital site.

In addition Mr  Burnham, also of the Our Tottenham Network and Haringey Defend Council Housing, contended that the Council’s approach to development was overly influenced by private developers and that the emphasis on working with private developers meant that existing residents and Council tenants would eventually be priced out of the area.  Changes to Council tenants’ leases and the demolition of Council housing were not welcomed and Mr Burnham contended that the Council should be improving and investing in existing homes and facilities rather than demolishing homes.

A statement was also tabled by Patricia Pearcy, Co-Vice Chair of the Tottenham Business Group, which called on the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration to explore options that would retain existing shops and businesses in area before the next phase of consultation began. The statement also noted that a petition had been signed by four thousand residents against demolition in the area and urged that the weight of opinion in relation to this was considered.

The Leader of the Council thanked the Our Tottenham Network for its deputation and asked how the network had gauged public support for the five ‘quick wins’ outlined. In response it was noted that the petition referred to by Ms Pearcy demonstrated that residents were against demolition and changes to High Road West.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing, Councillor Alan Strickland, formally responded to the deputation and began by thanking Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 676.

(Report of the Deputy Chief Executive. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council). The report sets out progress against the Council’s outcomes and strategic priorities for 2013/14.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Leader of the Council, which set out the progress made in relation to the Council’s outcomes and strategic priorities for 2013/14.

RESOLVED:

1. That progress against the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities in 2013/14 be noted and;

2. That the areas for focus and emerging issues going forward, as outlined in the report, be noted.

Alternative options considered

Not applicable as the report is for noting.

Reasons for decision

Not applicable as the report is for noting.

(Report of the Interim Chief Operating Officer. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Environment). The report outlines the feedback received from consultation with residents and businesses to gauge support for Haringey to become a 20mph borough and proposes plans for the implementation of this.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Stuart McNamara, which set out the feedback received from consultation with residents and businesses to gauge support for Haringey to become a 20mph borough and that also set out plans for the implementation of this.

Councillor McNamara thanked residents and local groups for the contributions that they had made as part of the consultation process and noted the support received for the implementation of a 20mph limit on residential roads and roads with schools.

RESOLVED:

1. That the results of the public consultation, outlined in the report, be noted;

2. That authorisation be given to officers to proceed to detailed design and implementation of a 20 mph limit on residential roads in the vicinity of schools and in town centres; and

3. That approval of the detailed design and decisions relating to changes to Traffic Management Orders be delegated to the Assistant Director Environmental Services and Community Safety, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment. 

Alternative options considered

The Council had the option of doing nothing, of implementing a borough wide 20mph limit on all roads (exempt roads on the TLRN), or proceeding as proposed in the report. These options were all considered within the report.  

Reasons for decision

The feedback from the public was mixed although it was generally acknowledged that a 20mph limit for our residential roads, particularly around schools, was a positive way forward.

The main area of opposition appeared to be the need for a blanket approach to include the main roads. It was felt that the main roads, which were mostly wide and straight, were suitable for a 30mph and that a reduction to 20mph would increase journey times and congestion. As with all speed limits, if the site does not look like or feel like the limit imposed then there would be larger scale offending. Reports of non-compliance along Islington’s main roads, particularly at night when traffic is light, provides a good example of why further investigation was required prior to determining if all main roads were suitable.  

The majority of collisions (accidents) in Haringey occur on the main roads, particularly in the vicinity of town centres, as this is where the potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles is greatest. This must be considered a priority when determining the appropriateness of speed limit.

The Roads Task Force considered the 20mph debate and concluded that a ‘one cap fits all approach’ was not practicable. A ‘street family’ was developed comprising of nine road types based on functionality and usage to reflect the complexity of London’s street environment. Speed limits play an important role where ‘movement and place’ need to be better balanced, where there are high levels of pedestrian activity and where safety issues have been identified. This approach should be adopted to determine the feasibility of introducing a 20mph for Haringey’s main roads. For example, where 20mph would be suitable for Wood Green High Road as its function is a town centre  ...  view the full minutes text for item 678.

(Report of the Interim Chief Operating Officer. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration). The report provides an update on progress and seeks approval to establish a formal programme for the delivery of change and outcomes across Housing Services.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which provided an update on progress made in reviewing the Housing Management Service and that also sought approval to establish a formal programme for the delivery of change and outcomes across Housing Services.

RESOLVED:

1. That approval be given to set up a Housing Unification and Improvement Programme to be managed alongside existing corporate transformation programmes;
   
   
2. That the proposed method of staff transfer into and out of Homes for Haringey be noted and that it also be noted that this would be reported to the Corporate Committee;
   
   
3. That it be noted that an interim funding bid from the Transformation Reserve (previously approved by Council) of around £400,000 was requested to support the delivery of the whole programme; and

4. That approval be given to the transfer of the management of the budgets related to the associated transfer of housing services from the Council to Homes for Haringey, being around £8.5m, following review and confirmation of need, and that the  agreement of the final amount relating to these services be delegated to the Assistant Director for Finance.

Alternative options considered

Alternatives were considered by Cabinet at its meeting in March. This report takes forward the decisions made at that meeting.

Reasons for decision

In order to meet savings targets across the Council, housing services need to be reviewed. The best option for this is a root and branch review to move services from ‘doing’ to ‘enabling’. A decision is required in order to establish a corporate programme alongside existing corporate programmes, ensuring consistency, alignment and efficiency.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration). The report provides a summary of the Gateway Review recommendations and how these have been addressed and also proposes that a further report is provided to Cabinet in Autumn 2014 on an options appraisal.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which provided a summary of the Gateway Review recommendations and how these had been addressed. The report also proposed that a further report was provided to Cabinet in Autumn 2014 on an options appraisal.

In response to a point made with regard the public interest in Hornsey Town and the need to communicate the changes planned to local residents, the Cabinet Member noted that the Council’s Communications Team was developing a communications plan and that this would set out how residents would be kept informed of progress in relation to the project.

In addition it was also agreed that a record of all consultation with residents and stakeholders should be kept and presented with the options appraisal considered by Cabinet in the Autumn.

RESOLVED:

1. That the Review the Gateway Review report and its recommendations, as set out in Section 4 and Appendix A of the report, be noted;  and
2. That agreement be given to a report being brought to Cabinet in Autumn 2014 presenting the options generated and results of the options appraisal and seeking agreement as to how to proceed with the options considered for the Hornsey Town Hall site.

Alternative options considered

Gateway Review

The Council initiated and organised a Gateway Review, run by Local Partnerships, which was held in December 2013.  A Local Partnerships Gateway Review is a peer review process applied to a project or programme at key decision points in its life cycle. It is designed to provide fully independent external quality assurance. The purpose of the Gateway Review for Hornsey Town Hall was as a mechanism to assess the progress of the project to deliver the outcomes expected both by the Council and Mountview and to enable the Council to make informed decisions about the level of risk it was prepared to take in proceeding to the next stage in the delivery of the project.

The timing of the Gateway Review coincided with conclusion of Mountview’s outline design stage and the release of their cost plan and fundraising report to indicate the costs and available funds for the project.  This indicated a significant funding gap for delivery of the project, much higher than previously reported. This gap was a result of both an increase in costs associated with delivering the Mountview scheme and a reduction in Mountview’s fundraising target.

The Gateway Review provided a delivery confidence assessment of Amber/Red.   This assessment is defined as ‘Successful delivery of the project/programme is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and whether resolution is feasible.’

The Gateway Review also made eight prioritised recommendations. The full Gateway Review report is available at Appendix A.

Options Appraisal

To address the Gateway Review recommendations, the Council appointed GVA Ltd in February 2014 to undertake a detailed options appraisal of the Hornsey Town Hall project, including broader options for the Town Hall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 680.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing). The report seeks approval to adopt the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework Delivery Plan as the programme for the delivery of regeneration in Tottenham and to approve additional funding to support a project working with residents in Northumberland Park.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which sought approval to adopt the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework Delivery Plan as the programme for the delivery of regeneration in Tottenham. The report also sought approval of additional funding to support a project working with residents in Northumberland Park.

The Cabinet Member noted that the plan would evolve as work developed and he encouraged residents and stakeholders to advise officers if revisions were required. He noted that a community event was being held in July at Tottenham Town Hall to discuss the delivery plan and this would form the first of a series of events to engage with residents on the plan.

In response to a question the Chief Executive noted that priorities and indicators in relation to children aged 0 to 4 years of age had not been developed as yet; however, work recently undertaken as part of a Big Lottery bid, would be used as a basis for developing these.

The Leader noted that the delivery plan demonstrated the Council’s commitment to placing people at the heart of regeneration work and that the plan did not simply set out how physical regeneration would be achieved.  

RESOLVED:

1. That the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework Delivery Plan, attached at Appendix 2 of the report, be adopted as the programme for the delivery of regeneration in Tottenham;

2. That it be noted that the approach to community involvement in governance would be developed in consultation with the community and that officers would report back in Autumn 2014 with the community engagement and governance structure; and

3. That approval be given to additional funding of £230,000 per annum to support the project working with residents in the Northumberland Park ward (as outlined in Section 3 of Appendix 2, item 1a).

Alternative options considered

Delivering the regeneration of Tottenham is a key corporate priority of the Council. The Strategic Regeneration Framework and accompanying Delivery Plan sets out the Council’s leadership and commitment to achieving the scale of change required to deliver the vision, and was developed following extensive community engagement.

The Delivery Plan will be reviewed annually so there will be opportunities to refocus the programme or include further projects.

Reasons for decision

The report asks Cabinet to adopt the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework Delivery Plan as the programme for the delivery of regeneration in Tottenham, to meet the future vision for Tottenham set out in the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework.

The Tottenham team budget, which was agreed as part of the 2014-15 budget process, largely related to the physical regeneration aspects of the programme. As the social regeneration programme has been developed since the approval of the Tottenham Strategic Regeneration Framework in March 2014, Cabinet is asked to approve additional funding of £230,000 per annum for the delivery of the project working with residents in the Northumberland Park ward to support the ‘People’ priority.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing). The report details the progress made in relation to the High Road West Regeneration Scheme and sets out the consultation and engagement approach for the next stages of the Scheme.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which detailed the progress made in relation to the High Road West Regeneration Scheme and that also set out the consultation and engagement approach for the next stages of the Scheme.

RESOLVED:

1. That approval be given to delegated authority being given to the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development and Chief Operating Officer, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, to agree the High Road West master plan for final consultation with the community in September 2014. Following this consultation there would be a report back for further consideration by Cabinet;

2. That the principles and approach to engagement set out in the High Road West Consultation and Engagement Strategy be noted;

3. That approval be given for officers to undertake statutory Section 105 Housing Act 1985 consultation with Council tenants on the Love Lane Estate once the master plan and Section 105 documentation have been agreed by the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development and Chief Operating Officer, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration. The results of the Section 105 consultation will be brought back to Cabinet to consider with the High Road West master plan and;

4. That the details of the Love Lane Residents Charter be noted and that approval be given to officers to work closely with the Residents Association to further develop the principles. The Resident Charter will then be brought back to Cabinet for agreement at a later date.

Alternative options considered

A detailed consultation and engagement strategy is required for the High Road WestScheme to ensure that the Council can meet its commitment to involve the local community in the development of the master plan and the future planning of their area.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development and the Chief Operating Officer must approve the master plan for consultation. This allows the master plan to be further developed in June and July with the community and consulted on in September 2014. If the master plan is agreed for consultation at the next Cabinet meeting (scheduled for 16 September 2014) there will be a delay (at least three months) in the development of the master plan.

In addition to wider consultation with the community, approval to undertake statutory Section 105 consultation with Love Lane secure tenants is required to ensure the Council meets its statutory consultation duty. Under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, the Council has a statutory duty to undertake consultation with secure council tenants on any housing management proposals management (this includes management, maintenance, improvement or demolition of dwelling houses) that affect their tenancy. As the next iteration of the plan for High Road West will include the demolition and replacement of all properties on the Love Lane Estate, the consultation on the master plan will need to include statutory Section 105 consultation for secure tenants living on the Love Lane Estate.

Approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item 682.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing). The report seeks approval to dispose of Council land and to agree the approach to housing delivery for the Housing Zone and the submission of a Housing Zone bid to the Greater London Authority.

Exempt information pertaining to the report is set out under Item 24 below.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which sought approval to dispose of Council land and to agree the approach to housing delivery for the Housing Zone and the submission of a Housing Zone bid to the Greater London Authority.

The Cabinet Member noted the report marked an important milestone in the regeneration of Tottenham and for Tottenham Hale as a new affordable neighbourhood within London. The Council’s bid for a Housing Zone at Tottenham Hale would accelerate investment in the area and bring greater cohesion to the proposals coming forward.

The Leader noted that she had been contacted by Haringey Health Watch who had raised concerns with regard to the capacity of primary health care services in the area and their ability to meet the needs of a growing population. This issue had also been of concern to local Ward Members and the Council for some time. The Leader advised that the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) had invited NHS England to attend its next meeting in order to provide an overview of how the provision of GP services was being addressed in Tottenham and in London as a whole and she noted that this was an issue that the Council would continue to monitor.

In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, as to how the Council would ensure that the target of 50% affordable housing was achieved, given that this had not been achieved on other sites, the Cabinet Member noted that, if approved, Housing Zone status would meant that additional funding would be received that would support this aspiration.

It was suggested that it may useful to consider providing an explanation as to what the term ‘affordable housing’ actually meant in terms of cost. 

Exempt information pertaining to the report was considered at agenda item 24.

RESOLVED:

1. That approval be given to the disposal of the Council lands at Monument Way, the Welbourne Centre and lands adjacent to Tottenham Hale bus station (all of which are shown within red boundaries on the plans in Appendix 3A, 3B and 3C) as part of the Housing Zone delivery process, subject to terms to be agreed;

2. That approval be given to delegate authority to the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with other public sector partners (at this point only Transport for London/London Underground Ltd) with regard to the pooling of relevant  public sector land assets within the Tottenham Hale Housing Zone priority area and to include the land referred to in paragraph 3.1 and to agree the terms for disposal of the land;

3. That approval be given the approach to housing delivery for the Housing Zone (set out in the report);

4. That approval be given to the submission of a Housing Zone bid to the Greater London Authority based on the above described ask (set out in the report and the paper  ...  view the full minutes text for item 683.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing). The report recommends approval of the proposed next steps in securing the necessary investment in these sites to realise their regeneration potential. 

Exempt information pertaining to the report is set out at Item 25 below.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which sought approval of proposed next steps in securing the necessary investment in these sites to realise their regeneration potential. 

In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition as to why the level of affordable housing within the scheme was not higher the Cabinet Member advised that the decision made in relation to Wards Corner had been made by the Planning Committee based on advice from the District Valuer. With regard to the Apex House site the Cabinet Member noted that 40% affordable housing was still considered to be a good level, particularly given the difficulty that boroughs across London face in achieving this. The Cabinet Member noted that in order to achieve 40% affordable housing on the site the Council had used the receipt from the land value to support this.

The Leader noted that the provision of affordable housing should be seen as part of the overall public value of the scheme, which also included relocating the market and creating a civic heart at Tottenham Green by relocating Council services there.

In response to a question from Councillor Adje the Leader noted that exempt information in relation to the leasehold interest of Apex House would be supplied to him outside the meeting. With regard to proposals for the relocation of the Customer Services Centre the Chief Executive noted that two sets of proposals would be presented to Cabinet in the Autumn; one in the realtion to the short term relocation of the centre and a second set of proposals in relation to the long term relocation of the centre.

Exempt information pertaining to the report was considered at agenda item 25.

RESOLVED:

1. That the original decision, made by Cabinet on 14 October 2008 that Apex House N15 is surplus to service requirements, be re-confirmed;

2. That it be noted that the Customer Service Centre at Apex House could be moved to Tottenham Green and that a report on this would be presented to Cabinet in due course;

3. That approval be given to the appropriation of the Apex House site for planning purposes pursuant to Section 122 Local Government Act 1972 and subject to the powers provided by Section 237 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 5.15-5.24 of the report;

4. That approval be given to sell, pursuant to Section 233 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a long leasehold interest in Apex House, N15 to a wholly owned subsidiary of Grainger plc (to be incorporated prior to exchange of contracts) based on the Heads of Terms set out in the exempt Appendix 3 to the report and authorises the Assistant Director Corporate Property and Major Projects to approve the detailed terms and conditions of sale (consistent with the terms set out in the exempt Appendix 3 to this report) after consultation with the Assistant Director of Corporate Governance and the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration;

5. That approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item 684.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion and Sustainability). The report seeks endorsement of project proposals and approval of the balance of funding required to be allocated to the project from Council reserves.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion and Carbon Reduction, which sought endorsement of project proposals and approval of the balance of funding required to be allocated to the project from Council reserves.

The Cabinet Member invited Jenny Holloway of the Fashion Technical Academy (FTA) to provide an overview of the FTA’s work. Ms Holloway noted that the FTA provided training for anyone aged 16 plus that ranged from NVQ Level 1 to NVQ Level 4 in the technical production of garments. This concentration on the development of technical skills in garment production was unique in the UK and provided an excellent basis for training in the textile industry. Ms Holloway noted that although the majority of students were aged between sixteen and nineteen there was a significant proportion of people aged fifty plus who wanted to develop new skills and this group were also in training. The FTA worked closely with Job Centre Plus and the local sixth form and further education colleague to attract students.

The Leader thanked Ms Holloway for attending and noted that the presence of the FTA in Tottenham demonstrated the Council’s role in helping to enable people to equip themselves with the skills they needed to find employment.

RESOLVED:

1. That the project proposal as detailed be endorsed and approval be given to take a five year lease on Unit 13 at the Crusader Estate;

2. That approval be given to carry out improvements under landlord’s responsibilities to achieve statutory compliance at the costs highlighted in paragraph 5.19 of the report;

3. That approval be given to sub-let unit 13 to Fashion Enter for a period of 5 years to run the Fashion Technology Academy at a tapering subsidised rent as highlighted in paragraph 5.20 of the report and;

4. That  approval be given to the balance of funding required of £539,864 to be allocated to the project be found from council reserves.

Alternative options considered

As the Fashion Technical Academy will benefit London’s wider economy, and provide opportunities to people from outside Haringey, there is a case for sharing the cost of public subsidy with other authorities or agencies.  However, given the particular benefits to Haringey of consolidating the fashion cluster in this area, plus the lack of alternative options which could deliver funding in the immediate term, it is on balance considered appropriate that Haringey Council should consider meeting the full public subsidy requirement at this stage in the Academy’s development. In the longer term, the Council will actively work with Fashion Enter to identify and exploit other sources of external support which could reduce the burden on Haringey, and to develop a long-term business plan that will allow Academy to become as self-sufficient as possible. 

There are no other options which would achieve the same outcomes; the only other option is for the Council not to support the development of the Fashion Technical Academy at all, or to reduce its funding contribution (which would effectively have the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 685.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning). The report seeks approval of the Planning Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for publication on the Council’s website and approval to revoke certain supplementary planning guidance.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning, which sought approval of the Planning Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for publication on the Council’s website and approval to revoke certain supplementary planning guidance.

Cabinet was advised that within the original report SPG 11b had been recommended to be revoked under 3.2 of the report; however, this should have been listed as being withdrawn under 3.4 of the report.

It was suggested that it would be useful to provide an explanation for members of the public as to where the provisions set out in the defunct documents would now sit.

RESOLVED:

      i.        That the Planning Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) be noted and approved for publication on the Council’s website.

    ii.        That approval be given to the revocation of the following supplementary planning guidance, pursuant to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated regulations:

Ø  SPG11b – Buildings Suitable for Community Use (2003)

Ø  Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2008)

Ø  Wood Green Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document (2008)

   iii.        That approval be given to an application to the Secretary of State for the revocation of the above mentioned guidance under section 25 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

   iv.        That approval be given to the withdrawal of the following guidance, pursuant to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated regulations:

Ø  SPG11b – Buildings Suitable for Community Use (2003)

Ø  SPG1ai – Major Applications Protocol (2004);

Ø  SPG1c – Strategic Views (2006);

Ø  SPG1d – Telecom Equipment, Including Satellite Dishes (2006);

Ø  SPG3c – Backland Development (2006);

Ø  SPG4 – Access for all, Mobility Standards (2006);

Ø  SPG5 – Safety by design (2006);

Ø  SPG6c – Restaurants, Hot Food Premises, Use Class A3 etc (2006);

Ø  SPG7b – Travel Plans (2006);

Ø  SPG7c – Transport Assessment (2006);

Ø  SPG8f – Land Contamination (2006);

Ø  SPG8h – Environmental Impact Assessment (2006);

Ø  SPG9 – Sustainability Statement Guidance Notes and Sustainability Checklist (2006);

Ø  SPG10e – Improvements to Public Transport Infrastructure and Services (2006);

Ø  SPG11a – Car repair workshops and garages (2006);

Ø  SPG18 – Town Centre Retail Thresholds (2004);

Ø  Basement Guidance Note (2012);

Ø  Tottenham International Development Framework Section 1 (2003);

Ø  Tottenham International Development Framework Section 2 (2003); and

Ø  Tottenham International Development Framework Section 3 (2003).

      v.            That it be noted that the following guidance would be withdrawn by a decision of the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control:

Ø  Planning note on housing SP2: Housing

Alternation options considered

Planning Authority Monitoring Report

The Localism Act 2011 requires local planning authorities to produce monitoring reports. Planning authorities can now decide what is monitored and the format for reporting. Haringey’s existing procedure of annual monitoring is considered an effective way for presenting outcomes and achievements of the planning service, within existing resources. As such, no other options were considered. However, the report includes information beyond the monitoring year where it helps to provide a more current picture of performance outcomes.

Supplementary Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 686.

(Report of the Director of Regeneration, Planning and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning). The report seeks agreement from Cabinet to recommend to Full Council that it adopt the CIL Charging Schedule and approval for the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document to go out to  statutory public consultation for a period of six weeks.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning, which sought agreement from Cabinet to recommend to Full Council that it adopt the CIL Charging Schedule and approval for the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document to go out to  statutory public consultation for a period of six weeks.

RESOLVED:

1. That the CIL  be endorsed and that the CIL Charging Schedule be recommended to Full Council for adoption for implementation from 1^st November 2014; and

2. That approval be given to the draft Planning Obligations SPD, as set out in Appendix B of the report, for a six week statutory public consultation.

Alternative options considered

The CIL Regulations are scheduled to restrict the pooling of s106 planning obligations to five sites from 1 April 2015. In order for infrastructure planning obligations to be pooled together from multiple sites post this date, a CIL charging schedule is required.

To explore all of the development and infrastructural opportunities, and ensure that developments come forward along timescales that ensure these synergies are exploited efficiently is not feasible. CIL offers certainty about the quantum of infrastructure contributions to be collected on each site in the borough, without jeopardising affordable housing contributions, and while maintaining the opportunity for bespoke site-specific planning obligations to be collected. As such it is not seen as realistic to proceed with the current planning obligations regime.

Reasons for decision

Adoption of CIL should be recommended by Cabinet to Council. The SPD preparation requires a statutory six week public consultation which will commence after Cabinet approval.

(Report of the Deputy Chief Executive. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing). The report seeks approval to waive Contract Standing Order 10.01 to extend the project for a further twelve months until September 2015.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing, which sought approval to waive Contract Standing Order 10.01 to extend the project for a further twelve months until September 2015.

RESOLVED:

1. That approval be given to waive Contract Standing Order 8.02 (requirement to obtain quotations) as allowed under CSO 10.01.2 (d): “it is in the Council's overall interest.”; and

2. That approval be given to extend the Tottenham Thinking Space (TTS) Pilot for a further twelve  months of service provision (to September 2015), with the contract for the pilot to be awarded to Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

Alternative options considered

Competitively tendering a second year of the pilot from other providers is not recommended for the following reasons:

This project’s success is based on building long-term trust between the provider and the community in a facilitated way that requires specialist skills and expertise. Even with such a highly skilled staff, TTS found it hard, in the first six months, to establish this ongoing trust; this could be jeopardised by alternative service provision.

It is unlikely another provider would have sufficient knowledge and expertise of the community therapy concept to be able to take over the project without impacting negatively on service quality.

Reasons for decision

A waiver of CSO 8.02 as allowed under CSO 10.01.2 (d) is sought in order to provide continuity of service. 

(Report of the Deputy Chief Executive. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families). The report seeks agreement to commence stakeholder consultation on the reinstatement of the Published Admission Number (PAN) at Bounds Green Infant and Junior School and the possible expansion of St James Church of England Primary and St Mary’s church of England Primary Schools.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, which sought agreement to commence stakeholder consultation on the reinstatement of the Published Admission Number (PAN) at Bounds Green Infant and Junior School and the possible expansion of St James Church of England Primary and St Mary’s church of England Primary Schools.

RESOLVED:

1. That approval be given for officers to commence stakeholder consultation on the possible reinstatement of the published admission number (PAN) at Bounds Green Infant and Junior School and on the possible expansion of St James CE Primary and St Mary’s CE Primary Schools;.

2. That approval be given for the Cabinet Member for Children and Families to  consider a further report from officers in December 2014 on the outcome of the consultation and to decide on whether or not a statutory notice should be published setting out the local authority’s intention to permanently expand St James’ and St Mary’s, such a decision to be informed by officers’ recommendations setting out consultation feedback and other relevant material considerations including the latest available information on the demand for and supply of school places in the borough; and.

3. That it be agreed that, in parallel with any consultation phase, the design work would be undertaken at risk on the potential expansions of all three schools to enable planning for delivery of any expansion(s) to be delivered on time in the event that such expansion(s) be approved. 

Alternative options considered

All available birth and school roll data concludes that we will run out of sufficient reception places in 2015 if we do not take action to increase the overall PAN for the borough. 

Additional places can be provided through new schools or by expansion (permanent or one off ‘bulge’ classes) of existing schools.

The Education Act 2011 changed the arrangements for establishing new schools and introduced section 6A (the academy/free school presumption) to the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Where a local authority thinks there is a need for a new school in its area it must seek proposals to establish an academy/free school.

While we know that we do not have enough reception places in the borough to meet future demand, this unmet demand is not concentrated in one location but is spread across the central and western parts of the borough.  This projected unmet demand can more effectively be met by the expansion of three existing schools as opposed to new provision concentrated in only one location. 

As a result of the analysis of the geographical spread of the unmet demand, expansion as opposed to a new school is proposed at this time.  By 2024 we expect to be more than ten classes (310 places) short of reception places if we do not take action to increase capacity.  This report is recommending the commencement of consultation on up to four classes (120 places) of additional capacity. 

Reasons for decision

Our projections show that we will not have enough places to meet projected demand if we do not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 689.

To note the minutes of the following:

a)    Cabinet Member Signing (Cabinet Member for Environment) – 27 June 2014

b)    Cabinet Member Signing (Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration) – 27 June 2014

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the following bodies be noted:

Cabinet Member Signing (Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration) – 27 June 2014

To note the significant and delegated actions taken by Directors since the previous Cabinet meeting. 

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Note from the Head of Local Democracy and Member Services

Items 24, 25 and 26 allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to Items  13, 14 and 2 respectively.

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting as the items below contain exempt information, as defined under paragraphs 3 and 5, Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting as the items below contain exempt information, as defined under paragraphs 3 and 5, Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider exempt information pertaining to Item 13 above.

Exempt information pertaining Item 13 was considered.

To consider exempt information pertaining to Item 14 above.

Exempt information pertaining Item 14 was considered.

There were no new items of exempt urgent business.